Legal rights of live-in couples in India
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that live-in relationships are legal and not a crime. This recognition stems from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Courts have emphasized that two consenting adults can live together without marrying, and this choice is part of their personal freedom.
Live-in relationships in India involve two adults living together without being married. This concept has gained popularity, especially among younger people in cities, but it remains a topic of debate due to cultural and social norms. While live-in relationships are not considered a legal marriage, the Indian judiciary has recognized them as valid and provided certain rights to partners and their children. The legal framework is still evolving, and recent updates have brought more clarity to the rights and responsibilities of live-in couples.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that live-in relationships are legal and not a crime. This recognition stems from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Courts have emphasized that two consenting adults can live together without marrying, and this choice is part of their personal freedom. For example, in the case of Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a 50-year live-in relationship, treating it similar to a marriage. More recently, in Nandkumar v. State of Kerala (2018), the court reaffirmed that adults have the right to live together without societal or parental interference.
Women in live-in relationships have specific protections under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 2(f) of this Act includes relationships "in the nature of marriage,” which covers live-in partnerships. This means a woman can seek legal remedies if she faces physical, emotional, or economic abuse. She can file a case against her partner for protection, residence, or financial support. Courts have clarified that a relationship qualifies as "in the nature of marriage” if the couple lives together for a significant time, presents themselves as spouses, and shares a household.
Maintenance rights are another important aspect for live-in partners. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, allows a woman in a long-term live-in relationship to claim maintenance from her partner if the relationship ends. In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2015), the Supreme Court ruled that a woman in a stable live-in relationship is entitled to financial support, similar to a wife in a marriage. However, the court also set conditions: the couple must be of legal age, unmarried, and have lived together voluntarily for a significant period, appearing as spouses to society.
Children born from live-in relationships have clear legal protections. The Supreme Court, in Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008), held that such children are not illegitimate if their parents lived together for a long time. These children have the right to inherit their parents’ self-acquired property under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. They are also entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, even if their parents separate. Courts treat child custody cases from live-in relationships similarly to those from marriages, ensuring the child’s best interests are prioritized.
Property rights for live-in partners are less straightforward. Unlike married couples, live-in partners do not automatically inherit each other’s property. However, in Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010), the Supreme Court stated that a partner could claim property rights if they contributed financially to its acquisition. This contribution must be proven in court, which can be challenging. The lack of clear laws on property inheritance for live-in partners remains a gap in the legal system.
A major update came in 2024 with the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in Uttarakhand. This law mandates that live-in couples register their relationship with local authorities within one month of starting to live together. Failure to register can lead to a fine of up to 10,000 rupees or a jail term of up to three months. The law also requires couples to inform authorities if the relationship ends. If one partner is under 21, their parents must be notified. This registration aims to provide legal recognition and accountability, but critics argue it violates privacy, a fundamental right recognized by the Supreme Court in 2017. conness
The Bombay High Court in ABC v. State of Maharashtra (2024) allowed a couple in a live-in relationship to live together, despite opposition from the woman’s family due to religious differences. The court issued a writ of habeas corpus, ensuring the woman’s right to choose her partner and live freely. The couple had signed a notarised "Live-in Relationship Deed” to affirm their consensual decision. The court also provided police protection to ensure their safety from societal or familial interference.
Same-sex live-in relationships have gained some recognition. In Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha (2020), the Orissa High Court upheld the right of a transgender man and a woman to live together, expanding the scope of live-in relationships. However, same-sex relationships still face legal ambiguity, especially since same-sex marriages are not recognized in India. The judiciary’s progressive stance in such cases highlights the evolving nature of personal liberties.
The Allahabad High Court in 2024 ruled that a Muslim cannot claim live-in relationship rights if they have a living spouse, as it conflicts with Islamic tenets and may amount to bigamy under Sections 494/495 of the Indian Penal Code. This decision shows how personal laws can complicate live-in relationship rights, especially for interfaith couples. Courts often balance constitutional rights with cultural and religious norms, leading to varied judgments.
Societal acceptance of live-in relationships remains low, and couples often face moral policing or harassment. The Shraddha Walkar case (2022), where a woman was murdered by her live-in partner, sparked debates about the safety of such relationships. This tragedy highlighted the need for stronger legal protections and awareness of existing rights. Despite judicial support, the lack of a specific law governing live-in relationships creates challenges, especially for interfaith or intercaste couples.